> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Could you explain how this applies? I don't mean to be difficult -- really. I appreciate that Hacker News is a great place for discussion, and I very much appreciate that's partly because of the work you're doing.

I'd just like to think that my criticism is thoughtful and is neither rigidly nor generically negative: I pointed out specific omissions and offered an analogy to explain the immaturity and cluelessness that I see in the piece -- not just that the claims are wrong but that the perspective is delivered so badly that it's difficul to take seriously. It wasn't meant to be unkind or a swipe; I didn't call names or sneer; it wasn't a generic tangent. It was the best way I could find to characterize the ways the piece's tone and content work together, undermining it and (almost certainly) rubbing people the wrong way.

No worries, here are the words/phrases that set off alarms for me:

> a profound absence of (historical) awareness

> weird, presumptuous, sophomoric sanctimoniousness

> strange insistence

> [the whole Jonestown bit as a metaphor]

> I hear the same cluelessness in this piece

I guess the issue is the number of negative characterizations all crammed into one paragraph. It just seems to lay it on too heavy.